Darren Antony Clive Gaskin v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, without a hearing, at the request of the Appellant, with the agreement of the Respondent. The Tribunal was satisfied that the appeal could be determined in this manner and that it was in the interests of justice to do so.

2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 14 August 2025 refusing his application for a second trainee driving instruction licence made on 9 July 2025, having taken account of representations made by the Appellant, in writing, in an email received on 17 July 2025, namely, that he wanted a second trainee licence as had completed his training and was hopeful to be successful in pursuing a career. The said decision of the Respondent was due to a failure by the Appellant to comply with the conditions of his first trainee licence in that over 50% of his additional hours training had been completed late, that is, not within the first three months of the period of his trainee licence. Holding a trainee licence is not required to undertake a Part 3 test, nor is refusal of a trainee licence a bar to the Appellant undertaking a Part 3 test. A trainee licence is issued solely to give an aspiring Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’) an opportunity to gain sufficient practical experience in driving tuition to help towards passing their Part 3 test.

3. The Respondent, in its said decision, the decision under appeal, also relied on the fact that the Appellant already had the benefit of a trainee licence for a period of six months for the said stated purpose of a trainee licence, a period found by the Respondent to be more than an adequate period of time and where his existing trainee licence remained in force until the determination of this appeal (meaning that the Appellant, in effect, had the benefit of a further trainee licence period from 19 July 2025 to 14 January 2026).The Respondent further relied on a submission that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence should be issued to an applicant for however long it took him to pass his Part 3 test and that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified ADI.

4. In his Notice of Appeal dated 22 August 2025, the Appellant stated that he had submitted the wrong training record by accident, and that he corrected the position on his return from holiday by submitting additional training records. He maintained that his training record was now up to date and that he had [presumably now] complied with the terms and conditions of his first trainee licence. He also maintained that the said reason given by the Respondent for refusing his application for a second trainee licence was confusing both to him and his trainer as his training record was [presumably now] in order. The Appellant also stated that there was lack of availability of dates for a Part 3 test and that his booking for a Pary 3 test was ‘on hold’ pending a date being notified to him. He stated, too, that he was continuing with constant training in the hope of passing his next Part 3 test. He concluded that he wanted a second trainee licence ‘to fulfil his career of becoming a driving instructor’

5. In its Response dated 20 November 2025, the Respondent reiterated the reasons given by it in the said decision under appeal, and that the Appellant, as an alternative, could attend a training course or study and practice with an ADI or give unpaid driving tuition - all alternatives that are used by some aspiring ADIs who have never held a trainee licence. The Respondent advised that the Appellant had failed two attempts to pass his Part 3 test on 5 March 2025 and 2 October 2025, respectively, a fact that had not been disclosed by the Appellant in his Notice of Appeal, and a fact that somewhat undermined his assertion of a lack of dates to take a Part 3 test.

6. The question of an alleged lack of availability of dates to undertake a Part 3 test is irrelevant, in any event, to the question of whether the Appellant should, or should not, be granted a second trainee licence by the Tribunal in this appeal since holding a trainee licence is not required to undertake a Part 3 test and, in any event, the Appellant did not, as a finding of fact, comply with the conditions of his first trainee licence by submitting complete training records on time. This, in itself, is a sufficient and appropriate reason to refuse this appeal.

7. Furthermore, the Appellant has, in reality, had the benefit of a trainee licence for a total period of almost 12 months, for the sole purpose for which a trainee licence is issued.

8. This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, second, ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, while giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

9. The essential basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been provided, under his first trainee licence, more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test, but, in addition, he had not complied with the conditions of that trainee licence.

10. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

11. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the written evidence and submissions that I received and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.